%\usetheme{Boadilla}
\usetheme{Singapore}
\title{Verifikasi dan Validasi Perangkat Lunak (d/h Teknik Pengujian Sistem}
\author{Anung Ariwibowo \\ \texttt{barliant@gmail.com}}
\date{}

\begin{document}

\maketitle

\begin{frame}
\titlepage
\end{frame}


\begin{frame}
\section{Pendahuluan}
\frametitle{Program Sebagai bagian dari Software}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Bagaimana meyakinkan software yang dibuat berfungsi dengan baik
\item Bagaimana agar tidak ada yang terlewat
\item Bagaimana mencari letak kesalahan dengan mudah
\end{enumerate}
\end{frame}

Peranti lunak dibangun dari banyak komponen, salah satu di antaranya adalah program yang dibuat oleh programmer dan developer software. Ketika software dilepas ke publik, progammer harus dapat memberikan jaminan bahwa program yang mereka buat telah memenuhi spesifikasi yang ditentukan sebelum software dibuat.

Satu hal yang perlu dicatat adalah bahwa pengujian sistem bukan berarti membebaskan peranti lunak yang dibuat dari keberadaan \emph{bugs}. Tujuan dari verifikasi dan validasi peranti lunak adalah untuk meyakinkan bahwa program dan peranti lunak yang ditulis sesuai dengan spesifikasi yang ditentukan, bukan menghilangkan \emph{bugs} di dalam software.

Sebagai sebuah sistem yang besar, peranti lunak melalui beberapa tahapan pengujian. Tahapan paling awal yang dilakukan untuk menguji peranti lunak dilakukan oleh programmer.

\begin{frame}
\section{Cerita Tentang Dua Orang Programmer}
\frametitle{Nava \& Dawidoff}
Address question \#2
\end{frame}


\begin{frame}
\frametitle{Largest.java}
\begin{verbatim}
public class Largest {
  /** 
   * Return the largest element in a list.
   *
   * @param list A list of integers
   * @return The largest number in the given list
   */

  public static int largest(int[] list) {
    int index, max=Integer.MAX_VALUE;

    max = 0;
    if (list.length == 0) {
      throw new RuntimeException("Empty list");
    }
    
    for (index = 0; index < list.length-1; index++) {
      if (list[index] > max) {
        max = list[index];
      }
    }
    return max;
  }
}
\end{verbatim}
\end{frame}


\begin{frame}
\frametitle{The Legislation of Morality}
We are justified in legislating morality \emph{only} insofar as the practice in question:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Violates another's rights, or 
\item produces social harms
\end{enumerate}
\end{frame}

They claim that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Gays do not commit sexual abuse more than straits, and
\item family formation is not at risk because of lesbian and gay equality
\end{enumerate}

``Gays and lesbians do not seek the right to be homosexual.  This ``right'' is not one within the authority of government to give.  They are fighting for the right to secure the conditions under which they may lead ordinary civilized lives.''

\section{Horowitz}

Via the threat of lawsuits for discrimination, U.S. is ``increasingly mandating homosexuality''.  There are several consequences that result:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Wherever such laws exist, they will attract homosexuals, lending them political strength in the communities where they reside.
\item Many homosexuals will seek to become gatekeepers, leading to the preference of homosexuals, and harsh anti-gay punishments (e.g., in colleges).
\item They will create market bottlenecks. (Not quite sure what the author is getting at here.  He claims that prices for heterosexuals will he higher and wages lower, but he then goes on to talk about the economic advantages homosexual couples receive if they are given the same benefits as married couples.  Connection?
\item The new legalism will increase heterosexual anger --- and even violence --- toward homosexuals.
\end{enumerate}

Gay activists, by wanting to prohibit things said against them, disregard the free speech of others. (e.g., Articles in a gay tabloid routinely call for removing freedom of speech from anyone alleged to be ``homophobic'').  They also have little respect for right to privacy (e.g., the tabloid \emph{Outweek}).  

\emph{Objection}: Ad hominem attack: Even if these claims were true (and gay activists were being hypocritical), that isn't a reason to claim that the free speech and right of privacy of homosexuals should not be protected. 

\emph{Objection:} That there is a danger of frivolous lawsuits does \emph{not} entail that protections should be eliminated.  

\emph{Objection}: Do his anecdotes accurate represent the gay community in general (or just a handful of extreme examples)?

\begin{frame}
\frametitle{Carl F. Horowitz}

\emph{His aim}: Question the legitimacy and integrity of the gay movement.

\end{frame}

\begin{frame}
His criticisms include:
\begin{itemize}
\item A claim of hypocrisy
\item Threat of violence
\item Anti-discrimination laws entail indirect affirmative action
\end{itemize}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}
Questions to think about:
\begin{itemize}
\item Could anti-discrimination laws lead to discrimination \emph{against} heterosexuals?
\pause
\item Should we (and to what extent ought we to) regulate speech against homosexuals?  
\end{itemize}

\end{frame}

\end{document}


